Not really, only to those who love the monarchy. Those who think we can do without don't really care. I'm somewhere in the middle: I don't care either way.

Don't really care? I do care! I want the whole monarchy to step down. A president would also cost us, but it would cost us a whole lot less than the monarchy. And besides that, it's up to the people to vote for president instead of a king or queen being chosen purely from birthright.

Don't really care? I do care! I want the whole monarchy to step down. A president would also cost us, but it would cost us a whole lot less than the monarchy. And besides that, it's up to the people to vote for president instead of a king or queen being chosen purely from birthright.

The problem is that they tend to not cost a lot when you make a cost/benefit analysis (In other countries where they did a proper one). Problem is that it is hard to measure but it would be a good thing to have done in stead of just looking at the cost.

Oh you didn't save? You should tell a German that in the Netherlands it was almost common to get a mortgage for 110% of the actual value of the house. They will laugh . I don't know how Sweden is but if it is the same as in the Netherlands now, it means you need to bring money yourself. And when comparing houses, you might not want to compare houses in the center of a city in the Randstad with some remote place in Sweden. I am pretty sure that for €280.000 you wont be able to buy much in the center of Stockholm neiter.

Aye, that's a good point, can't compare the cost of a house out in the sticks to the cost of a house in the city/suburbs. It'll always be cheaper if you're away from major cities. For example, it amazes me how much house prices fluctuate in the UK, depending on the part of the country. You could pay 3 - 4 times the amount for a place in London, than you would for a similar home somewhere up North.

Saying that though, I spent less than €280,000 and bought a very spacious, nicely turned out 2-floor apartment in a nice area of the city I live in (in NL).
Maybe I got a foreigner's discount?

Don't really care? I do care! I want the whole monarchy to step down. A president would also cost us, but it would cost us a whole lot less than the monarchy. And besides that, it's up to the people to vote for president instead of a king or queen being chosen purely from birthright.

You do understand that a monarch bring a PR value abroad and within domestic tourism that if transferred into money make up for the cost? There is a reason monarch travel abroad with trading commissions etc.

In Sweden a large ammount of the money go to the upkeep of the differnt palaces and other buldings. A cost that the tax payers would get either way since they are part of our cultural heritage.

Last edited by Bakis; 2013-02-01 at 11:50 AM.

Originally Posted by Darsithis

Let's keep this on track. This has nothing to do with breasts.

Russia - where free media is almost dead under the boot of Kremlin brainwashing propaganda.

Spectral, I don't think you get the Idea of the Dutch monarch. They hardly have any power at all, the royal family is just a figure of ages long gone. But still an image that represents the Dutch as a whole. The monarch now mostly does ribbon cutting, Shaking hands, waving his/her hand and look good on camera. As a figurehead they generate a crowd and attract media attention which often try to focus that on good things. In case of a disaster often the monarch will show up to make people feel happy and respected in their grief knowing that something will be done.

It is like a respected intelligent celebrity whom actually does something to be famous, Instead of whoring about.

Oh you didn't save? You should tell a German that in the Netherlands it was almost common to get a mortgage for 110% of the actual value of the house. They will laugh . I don't know how Sweden is but if it is the same as in the Netherlands now, it means you need to bring money yourself. If you bring in 15%+ of the value yourself and a fixed contract with your employer, the bank is happy to help you.
And when comparing houses, you might not want to compare houses in the center of a city in the Randstad with some remote place in Sweden. I am pretty sure that for €280.000 you wont be able to buy much in the center of Stockholm neiter.

You can buy a place for 280.000 euro's in the center of Stockholm... much cheaper than that actualy. Yes you need 15% of what you want to rent from the bank to get the mortgage but they don't look at wage as strictly as they do in The Netherlands. And no, getting a loan isn't as easy as it used to be and houses aren't cheap either. I don't see why you'd want 110% mortgage either... it's not like you're getting it for free you'll end up paying even more for it and the value goes down these days making you lose even more in the end.

Now look at Amsterdam.... the only houses that are affordable are the little Tokkie houses you can't even turn your ass around in.

You can buy a place for 280.000 euro's in the center of Stockholm... much cheaper than that actualy. Yes you need 15% of what you want to rent from the bank to get the mortgage but they don't look at wage as strictly as they do in The Netherlands. And no, getting a loan isn't as easy as it used to be and houses aren't cheap either. I don't see why you'd want 110% mortgage either... it's not like you're getting it for free you'll end up paying even more for it and the value goes down these days making you lose even more in the end.

Now look at Amsterdam.... the only houses that are affordable are the little Tokkie houses you can't even turn your ass around in.

Your first link doesn't show me stockholm center houses between €250.000 and €300.000. And yes, you can probably buy an appartment for that price or even a small house, but comparing it to your mothers out in the middle of nowhere with 5 acres of land is obviously silly.

The Funda link shows houses in Amsterdam up to €125.000. If you can't afford more then €125.000 then you shouldn't buy a house but save more.

And our banks don't look that strickt at all. The mortgage on my house is almost 5x my grosse yearly income while the government advices it to be below/around 4. I bought my new house last December when they were already strickt.

And you would take a loan above 100% to invest in your house, seeing as we still get a return on our intrest here. And when the housing market goes up, you make a profit on it. Hense, the government would have paid in part your investment.
Unfortunately stupid people thought it was a good idea (thought the prices would never go down) and en masse did it, creating a housing price bubble which is why you now probably find that the rules for a mortgage are more difficult then in the past.

Anyways, if you have/had saved then now is a good time to buy since the prices are back to 2004 level. If you wait a bit longer you might profit more even but it is not going to last for another 5 years or so.

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 01:06 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Hoky

Spectral, I don't think you get the Idea of the Dutch monarch. They hardly have any power at all, the royal family is just a figure of ages long gone. But still an image that represents the Dutch as a whole. The monarch now mostly does ribbon cutting, Shaking hands, waving his/her hand and look good on camera. As a figurehead they generate a crowd and attract media attention which often try to focus that on good things. In case of a disaster often the monarch will show up to make people feel happy and respected in their grief knowing that something will be done.

It is like a respected intelligent celebrity whom actually does something to be famous, Instead of whoring about.

Actually our queen also sits in meetings when going to a foreign country and actually discusses along when the big companies meet. Like in Singapore and Brunei a few weeks back. Obviously "ribbon cutting" plays a role but she is also there when the actual big deals are being made.

Now look at Amsterdam.... the only houses that are affordable are the little Tokkie houses you can't even turn your ass around in.

Er "houses" for 280,000€ in Stockholm were all 1å, Im not really sure you can be bashing the size of actual houses in other countries. Especially when the 280,000€ apartment you "bought" comes with 4000€ a month rent. Shit in London 280,000€ would buy you a 3 bedroom house and London has some of the highest cost per square metre prices in the world.

Actually our queen also sits in meetings when going to a foreign country and actually discusses along when the big companies meet. Like in Singapore and Brunei a few weeks back. Obviously "ribbon cutting" plays a role but she is also there when the actual big deals are being made.

That is true, But I believe correct me if I am wrong that she is only an advisor and a relay of information, a spokesperson as you will. Any real decision is not hers to make.

Pretty sure Stockholm is one of the more expensive cities in Europe(just my gut feeling, without comparing prices), but if you want a country house with land attached to it prices can be quite cheap in Sweden, it's a large country by area with a small population. It totally depends on how you enjoy living. The Netherlands and Sweden got totally different population density. 20.6/km2(SWE) vs 405.4/km2(NL), land area 449,964 km2(SWE) vs 41,543 km2(NL).

If you appriciate the wilderness and nature then yeah I'd say Sweden probably got more to offer, but if you want to live in an Urban area you will probably have to pay at least as much as you would do in the Netherlands. Personally I like to live in a bit more urban area, but I love to go to our summer home as well. It's nice to get out of the city and it's not expensive to own a summer home with all that one expects from a modern house, a summer house got some restrictions though(size being one).

A nice roomy house in Stockholm can be 10.000.000 SEK. I think the most expensive house sold last year was 40.000.000 million SEK.

In Sweden you also have totally different living expenses and income levels.
See here for example, quite large differences. Living standard as such isn't really that different, so it comes down to preference, do you enjoy living in a more Urban area(with all that comes with it) or do you appriciate the nature more?

Last edited by Jackmoves; 2013-02-01 at 01:37 PM.

The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

Now I've read two versions of Dutch monarch limited but still power in this thread.
Do they or do they not have any saying at all outside 'typical' cerimonial roles, such as asked when a new prime minister is elected and needs to be installed, or any political power whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Darsithis

Let's keep this on track. This has nothing to do with breasts.

Russia - where free media is almost dead under the boot of Kremlin brainwashing propaganda.

Now I've read two versions of Dutch monarch limited but still power in this thread.
Do they or do they not have any saying at all outside 'typical' cerimonial roles, such as asked when a new prime minister is elected and needs to be installed, or any political power whatsoever.

Up until about half a year ago, the monarchy only had the power to appoint a person to guide the process of political parties trying to find an agreement to rule together. So appointing the right person can slightly bend the outcome to your will.

Now they don't even have that power anymore. I think they're finally stipped of any remnants of political power.

But they do still get sponsored by the government, they get money for doing absolutely nothing instead of being born in the right family.
And now one retard gets replaced with another.

Up until about half a year ago, the monarchy only had the power to appoint a person to guide the process of political parties trying to find an agreement to rule together. So appointing the right person can slightly bend the outcome to your will.

Now they don't even have that power anymore. I think they're finally stipped of any remnants of political power.

The perfect monarchy then. I'm a royalist myself as long as what you just described is met.

Originally Posted by Darsithis

Let's keep this on track. This has nothing to do with breasts.

Russia - where free media is almost dead under the boot of Kremlin brainwashing propaganda.

Now I've read two versions of Dutch monarch limited but still power in this thread.
Do they or do they not have any saying at all outside 'typical' cerimonial roles, such as asked when a new prime minister is elected and needs to be installed, or any political power whatsoever.

Besides the ceremonial stuff, there are 2 things the royal family does which you might consider meddling with politics:

Foreign visists to other countries: They often visit other countries. The purpose of these visits is to increase the bonds between the nations, which might be considered haveing political powers.

At elections: Formerly, after elections took place, the queen would have conversations with the political leaders of each party and would then apoint a formation-man (formateur, don't know the english term). This man will lead (as he is independent) the conversations between parties to see what formations are possible. That's all the queen did at election times. However, at the last elections the government decided to take the royal family out of the election process and they appointed a formation-man on their own. It is presumed that this will be the case in the future.

Up until about half a year ago, the monarchy only had the power to appoint a person to guide the process of political parties trying to find an agreement to rule together. So appointing the right person can slightly bend the outcome to your will.

Now they don't even have that power anymore. I think they're finally stipped of any remnants of political power.

But they do still get sponsored by the government, they get money for doing absolutely nothing instead of being born in the right family.
And now one retard gets replaced with another.

90% sure they bring in more than they cost us. And their diplomatic role is not to be undervalued. Willem Alexander has been trained his entire life to be a diplomatic figurehead in our country. I'd much rather he do it than some one we have to hire.

As long as cost is the ownly downside of a monrachy I'm fine with it ie. they have no political power.
At the top of my hand a monarch provide the following (and more).
Acting as a force of bonding and hope in times of disaster that no prime minister or any other public person are able to match (Exception might be LOL-Charles in the UK)
Immense PR & pondus both abroad and domestically, especially when incorporated into trading delegations. A head of state vs a low ranking politician or 4year elected cabinet member.
A part of and guardian of our cultural heritage. One might say living history.

All of the above make up for what we the tax payers in Sweden pay as appanage to the royal family in both money and non-monetary worth.
However it cannot be stressed enough, all of the above succeed or fail depending on the monarch not having any political power whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Darsithis

Let's keep this on track. This has nothing to do with breasts.

Russia - where free media is almost dead under the boot of Kremlin brainwashing propaganda.

The perfect monarchy then. I'm a royalist myself as long as what you just described is met.

I really think that was a terrible change.

The person that appoints this 'formateur' should be someone outside of these parties, that way it happens fast, effective and neutral.
Now they want the entire House to vote for this position, as if they don't spend enough money on useless stuff already.

Originally Posted by Hardstyler01

Don't really care? I do care! I want the whole monarchy to step down. A president would also cost us, but it would cost us a whole lot less than the monarchy. And besides that, it's up to the people to vote for president instead of a king or queen being chosen purely from birthright.

That won't happen anytime soon, I'm glad for that.
I have yet to see an unbiased calculation that a president is indeed cheaper than a monarchy.
Pro-republican website "calculate" that a president is cheaper.
Pro-monarchy websites "calculate" that a monarchy is cheaper.

Why should it be up to the people to vote for someone with no real political power?
If history has taught us anything, it's that voting is a big joke.
People hardly show up if it actually matters.

Up until about half a year ago, the monarchy only had the power to appoint a person to guide the process of political parties trying to find an agreement to rule together. So appointing the right person can slightly bend the outcome to your will.

Now they don't even have that power anymore. I think they're finally stipped of any remnants of political power.

But they do still get sponsored by the government, they get money for doing absolutely nothing instead of being born in the right family.
And now one retard gets replaced with another.

The bolded part is just absolutely not true.
A member of the Royal family has to do A LOT if they want to keep getting economic support. I can't speak for the Dutch one, but for a member of the Royals here in Sweden want to get the money they have to do certain things. On order, when ordered. Sure, some might be as leasuirly as representing the Swedish state at a sporting event as an ambasador. Some might be rather important diplomatic events.
They get rather intense education and seriously can't laze around in school. They get trained to be diplomats since that's what they're born to be.
If a member of the family goes "Meh, I don't want to do this crap anymore!" He or she would stop getting the money. I'm not sure if Sweden's monarchy has the same deal that Englands has. That is, leasing the estates/farms/etc the family owns in return for a set fee, or if there's another arangement. Can't speak for the dutch either. But more likely than not they bring in more money than they cost.
Looking at tourist cash, the work they do, and the fact that my guess is at least half of the "Tax" that goes to the Monarchy goes for upkeep towards the tonne of castles we have in this country.

So no, they do far more than Nothing. "Just being born in the right family". Same as Paris Hilton has shown to have a rather shrewed buissness mind, even if I can't respect how she's used it.

PS: The royal family of Sweden aren't allowed to vote in general elections, and if they say a pipsqueak about politics of any kind there's generally a HUGE fucking uproar.